opinionfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Main Page
=lame format= This is the pov wikicity which prevents us from having a much better pov wikicity. The exclusivity policy around here is like...okay, fine, but what about the obvious format? My opinion is that you will end up with a lot of noise and not a lot of content really, like most pov explorations. my contention is of course based in the fact that I am both a Logician and an Eclectic. To start with, pro and con POV are just the start of the POV spectrum on the childish side of the sliding scale. There is also Eclectic POV, that often missed third option which one would have thought people interested in POV would know of, especially considering the standard logical fallacy of the false dillema. The next most obvious issue is that the best way to study POV (instead of just taking a broad tour of a really large and mostly disgusting swamp) is to study it piecemeal, by single axioms and their relationship to each other. Another way of putting this is that this very site is Pro Combative POV. Its biases are astounding, considering its mission to be the POV city. heres a rational approach to ethical axioms; http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/sidgwick/me/ politics; http://members.tripod.com/AttitudeAdjustment/Books/OPAR.htm philosophy delivered axiomatically; http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/bacon/novorg.html You won't easilly find axioms delivered formally on Religous topics because that is thje first step of descontructing dogmas. My opinion is that the world does not need another combat pov site. The world needs an information based POV resource. To imagine that this could happen here given the current organization schema is a tall stretch of the imagination. However, if i had no faith or hope at all, i suppose i wouldn't have bothered to comment. Prometheuspan 19:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) ps-i apologize in advance- Yes, this is a flyby. If you folks are interested please email me at Prometheuspan@hotmail.com http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/JoelKatz/logic.html http://www.mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic http://tellerprimer.ucdavis.edu/ another POV site Hi, I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of Wikireason, so that we don't end up duplicating effort. We maintain a list of sites with similar goals, if you want to look at it. AdamRetchless 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) this site won't work On the one hand, I'm an absolutist - I believe in absolute truths and think in terms of black and white. On the other hand, I must agree that "pro" and "con" being the only two considerations on a point is a very very lame format. What about, "This isn't even a legitimate topic to discuss" or "I'm not against this idea but think this other idea might be better" - no, this is too narrow of a focus to unite people to discuss real world issues - this coming from someone who is a self-described narrow-but-never-closed thinker. --Nerd42 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :Not sure if you meant to comment on Wikireason or not, but in case you did: The thoughts you're suggesting are entirely acceptable and possible to express at Wikireason, and since the time Adam made his post, Wikireason is moving more and more towards getting rid of the pro/con structure. Check out this link on how to use the Wikireason logic tree, for example. Also take a look at these discussions on the existence of God and evolution for some examples of how debates might look like. You must keep in mind that the whole project is a work in progress. 213.112.213.252 18:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) ::I meant to comment about this site. Wikireason looks nice - we ought to have a wikicity (er ... wikia) like that. --Nerd42 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) The Latest 4:Us's Team Individual Ponies They're the new earth ponies teams with a compatible of the Mane 7's powers. They're trustworthy to the Government utilities and are sincerely not aloof to any gods and not are not stupidity amongst them.